Vinton G. Cerf(@vgcerf), Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google; A "Father of the Internet"

10:15 – 10:30 a.m.

Break

10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

Panel 1: The "World" Wide Web?

Countries weigh the risks and benefits of the digital revolution differently: Some, like the U.S., preference free speech and privacy over other considerations; others, like many EU countries, give higher value to dignity and human rights. Developing a common set of principles on which to base a worldwide regulatory scheme is challenging — and indeed there is not agreement about whether or not this should even be a goal. This panel will provide a framework for the rest of the conference as we explore not only how different cultures attempt to draw lines of what is and is not acceptable in the digital world, but also the blurring of lines between state actors and private corporations in the Web 3.0 world.

In today’s digital age, there are many ways to be watched. Governments use a number of surveillance tactics, especially online, to monitor the behavior of their citizens. Private corporations are constantly accumulating vast amounts of personal data, from our shopping habits to our political leanings. Who exactly is watching us? What can they see? And how can they use this information? Although the balance between privacy and security is an age-old dilemma, the amount of information being generated and collected via smartphones and on the internet has amplified this tension. Some argue that data collection improves lives — catching the criminal before he acts or improving health with big data analytics. Yet, as seen in recent events around the world, these data can be exploited to manipulate users. We will take a new look at the ongoing debates surrounding the tradeoffs and how the interaction between the public and private sectors may evolve.

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a network of devices that collect and exchange data, where the physical world and the internet converge. The promise of IoT is efficiency and convenience — devices like Amazon’s Alexa that serve as a personal assistant, thermostats that adjust automatically based on use patterns, appliances turned on and off remotely with smartphones and wrist watches that measure our physical activity. The potential cost is privacy, security and freedom. Who owns the information that’s collected by these gadgets? How can private companies use this information? Perhaps more problematic, are we simply creating new portals for conflict, such as when hackers used webcams to shut down Twitter? As the lines between state and non-state actors blur, critical questions remain: Whom do we trust to build secure devices? Whose job is it to find and fix vulnerabilities? How do we balance efficiencies gained by IoT with privacy, dignity and security?

Intelligence reports have found that Russia tried to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election not only by hacking into political party emails and releasing that information, but also by issuing fake news to sway voters. Reports are that a repeat could take place in Germany’s fall 2017 election. It is indisputable that digital technologies have increased the quantity, availability and speed of information on a very global scale. This internet discourse expands our horizons, connects us with people outside of our physical neighborhoods and allows for large-scale and fast reaction when liberty is challenged. Yet, customized content also results in echo chambers of polarized views, creating an information vacuum that can be filled with propaganda and fake news.

Access to information is hardly equal throughout the world: In some countries citizens may receive a small portion of content and information on the internet but pay high prices for the rest, while in others citizens cannot even see all the available information — even if they were willing and able to pay — because of how access is structured. Zero rating, net neutrality and digital infrastructure imbalances all have an effect on access to information. How does the digital divide affect global citizenry and the balance of power that comes with information? Further complicating the picture is that even when people do have open access, it is almost impossible to process the vast amount of information, so rather than choosing their circles, people succumb to filter bubbles created for them by online platforms like Facebook. With large companies controlling who sees what, the future of liberty and dignity may in fact be in the hands of a few powerful, non-state actors.

If there is a lesson from the past four years, it is that the digital genie is not going back in the bottle. How do we govern a Web 3.0+ world where we depend on a myriad of digital tools yet are increasingly vulnerable to cyber weapons that affect infrastructure, fake news, echo chambers and data — putting safety and liberty at risk? Are there lessons learned, for Germany and elsewhere, from Russia's efforts to manipulate information in the 2016 U.S. election and our slowness to understand what was happening? Are the solutions to the issues presented at this forum largely technical, largely regulatory or largely political? Are we paying attention to the wrong things — old-fashioned treaties and laws — rather than global norms of behavior, digital means to identify fake news and propaganda, and understandings about what kind of infrastructure is off-limits for manipulation in peacetime?